From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wsa@the-dreams.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 20:54:46 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 01/11] i2c: add helpers for locking the I2C segment In-Reply-To: References: <20180615101506.8012-1-peda@axentia.se> <20180615101506.8012-2-peda@axentia.se> <20180618110502.cb5s24srp4frahm6@ninjato> Message-ID: <20180618115444.pgjmfntp767zuvmw@ninjato> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > > I wonder if i2c_lock_segment() and i2c_lock_root_adapter() are really > > more readable and convenient than i2c_lock_bus() with the flag. I think > > the flags have speaking names, too. > > > > Is that an idea to remove these functions altogether and start using > > i2c_lock_bus()? > > That would be fine with me. I don't have a strong opinion and agree that > both are readable enough... > > It would make for a reduction of the number of lines so that's nice, but > the macro in drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-gpio.c (patch 11) would not fit in > the current \-width (or whatever you'd call that line of backslashes to > the right in a multi-line macro). > > Does anyone have a strong opinion? I have a strong opinion on making i2c.h less bloated. And yes, less number of lines is nice, too. I think that surely pays off the whitespace exception. Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: